Since I can't sleep.....
I think your view of other people being unrealistic is patronising.
The LibDems did a lot worse than they expected to do at the election. They could have entered a coalition with Labour but that would have meant keeping a very unpopular PM in office from a party that, by any reckoning, had no mandate. They could have chosen not to enter a coalition with the Conservatives and forced them to form a minority government which would probably have led to another election in six months or so. They would have been portrayed as being selfish at a time when the country needed a stable government. They probably also thought that in that second election they would do even less well.
So they chose to enter a coalition with the Conservatives in exchange for various concessions; a referendum on changing the electoral system being the main one. It was probably seen as a once in a generation chance to achieve one of their main political goals.
As has already been established Clegg had decided before the election that he would not stick to the party's pledge to vote against tuition fees. It is obvious now, in fact I think Clegg has admitted it, that he regretted ever making that pledge. Presumably he made the calculation that agreeing to the Conservative policy on tuition fees was a price worth paying for the other rewards he saw coming from sharing power. It looks as if he underestimated the reaction and the Conservatives have been pretty clever at letting him take the flack for his 'betrayal'.
Many people, many LibDems, though, are wondering just what they are getting out of this coalition, other than 'power' and a taste of being in government, ministerial titles, offices, salaries and other perks for a few. If they win the referendum on AV maybe they will think it has been worth it. At the moment though it seems more likely that even if they do win it they will face the great irony of being destroyed under a voting system they thought would make them more powerful.
Since I can't sleep.....
I think your view of other people being unrealistic is patronising.
The LibDems did a lot worse than they expected to do at the election. They could have entered a coalition with Labour but that would have meant keeping a very unpopular PM in office from a party that, by any reckoning, had no mandate. They could have chosen not to enter a coalition with the Conservatives and forced them to form a minority government which would probably have led to another election in six months or so. They would have been portrayed as being selfish at a time when the country needed a stable government. They probably also thought that in that second election they would do even less well.
So they chose to enter a coalition with the Conservatives in exchange for various concessions; a referendum on changing the electoral system being the main one. It was probably seen as a once in a generation chance to achieve one of their main political goals.
As has already been established Clegg had decided before the election that he would not stick to the party's pledge to vote against tuition fees. It is obvious now, in fact I think Clegg has admitted it, that he regretted ever making that pledge. Presumably he made the calculation that agreeing to the Conservative policy on tuition fees was a price worth paying for the other rewards he saw coming from sharing power. It looks as if he underestimated the reaction and the Conservatives have been pretty clever at letting him take the flack for his 'betrayal'.
Many people, many LibDems, though, are wondering just what they are getting out of this coalition, other than 'power' and a taste of being in government, ministerial titles, offices, salaries and other perks for a few. If they win the referendum on AV maybe they will think it has been worth it. At the moment though it seems more likely that even if they do win it they will face the great irony of being destroyed under a voting system they thought would make them more powerful.